Obama, The New Yorker, And Shared Enemies
MarketWatch Media Columnist Jon Friedman Waited In Vain For A Rally Around The New Yorker
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Obama Leads In Latest Poll
John McCain faces an uphill battle against Barack Obama, who is leading in many polling categories. Jeff Greenfield takes a closer look at what the polls say about the upcoming electoral campaign.
-
Video
Is The Obama 'Satire' Funny?
The New Yorker cover depicting Barack Obama as a Muslim radical has sparked a firestorm of controversy - but is it funny? Harry Smith asks that question of political comedian Nancy Giles.
-
Video
McCain: New Yorker Was Wrong
In an exclusive interview with Maggie Rodriguez, Sen. John McCain called a New Yorker cover cartoon picturing Barack Obama as a radical "wrong" and "offensive."
-
Photo
Michelle and Barrack Obama and the cover of the July 21 issue of the New Yorker. (AP/CBS/The New Yorker)
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
This is predictable -- and rather ridiculous.
The naysayers have stayed in the spotlight this week, partly because the rest of the media failed to stick up for one of their own, for a change. The New Yorker is now stranded on an island.
Pointed sarcasm
But the critics should know better. Surely, even the most politically dogmatic people MUST be intelligent enough to understand that the New Yorker is making a point through sarcasm. The weekly is mocking the irrational prejudices that plenty of Americans harbor about the Obamas.
The magazine is sticking its finger in the eye of every bigot who hates the Obamas because they're African-Americans, every racist who seeks to polarize the electorate and every ignoramus who mistrusts the senator from Illinois without examining his record and background.
Something else is going on here as well. This criticism centers on conservatives' strong dislike -- "hatred" is such a nasty word, no? -- of both Obama and the New Yorker, two of the most visible and successful symbols of liberal America. While there was also carping in some liberal quarters, the most vocal anger seemed to come from the other side.
The liberals' opponents are jumping on the bandwagon partly in the hope of making the New Yorker look bad (i.e. unpatriotic). The magazine has written many stories blasting the Bush administration's policies, especially its handling of Iraq.
It's a fair question to introduce the New York Times' much-criticized (by me, among others) story earlier this year on Republican presidential aspirant Sen. John McCain. The difference is that the Times was accused of publishing unsubstantiated rumors in a piece about McCain, whose candidacy it probably won't endorse later this year. The New Yorker, regarded as a highly liberal magazine, would be inclined to root for Obama (if privately) to win the election.
Media apathy
At such a tense time, I expected a pro-New Yorker rallying cry from the media. Don't forget that we in the media love to lavish attention on ourselves. We practically live for it.
Remember, when "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert died, the Washington and television media covered the story as exhaustively as they would the passing of a head of state or a pope. The New York City media reacted in much the same way to the death of magazine legend Clay Felker.
Perhaps there is an anti-New Yorker backlash, too.
Inveterate Media Web readers know about much of the publishing industry's resentment of the New Yorker. This has taken many subtle forms in the past few years, ranging from the magazine receiving fewer National Magazine Award nominations and wins than in past years to the embrace of crosstown rival New York magazine. .
Among the people who inherently dislike the New Yorker and Obama, which group has stronger feelings?
I'd call it a tie.
MEDIA WATCH QUESTION OF THE DAY: How did the New Yorker cover make you feel? a) delighted b) amused c) angry d) furious.
Media Web appears on Wednesdays and Fridays at MarketWatch.com.
By Jon Friedman
Copyright © 2007 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved



Definitely b) amused.
The reaction of the Obama camp was hugely disappointing to me. Political satire is an American institution, so to have them react they way they did told me a) they''re not ready to play with the big boys, and b) they demand extra special treatment (although on what basis I''m still not clear).
The reaction of the media was even more disappointing. Never did they show their bias and lack of professionalism more. Cute but supremely ignorant young things breathlessly whining because someone "mistreated" their candidate. There was no mistreatment (see above), and the election isn''t for third grade hall monitors, it''s for the leader of the free world.
The Muslims overreacted to a Danish cartoon; Obama''s followers overreacted in the same way to this. It seems they have more in common than I realized.
Obama is an accidental American. He was born on our soil, but he does not share most of the ideas and experiences we take for granted in Americans. Race is part of the subject, but only as an indicator and illuminator of the concealed ideas and attitudes of Obama.
Posted by Ariel133 at 07:13 AM : Jul 16, 2008
ROFLMAO This POOR Klan Man ask a question about "liberals" then pretends to be one, answering the question. Me thinks the boy needs and education on the history of the nation, it was founded by Liberals and MOST if not all it''s greatest leaders are Liberals. He also needs to stop trying to understand the LIES produced by his pals and himself. To continue to play on the fears of people, using lies about the man''s religion and race, is about as UN-American as one can get. SO mr. pretender let''s let the fuhrer and shooter know you''re out here doing your best!! SIEG HEIL BUSH
Posted by greeneyes222 at 06:47 AM : Jul 16, 2008
Typical Fascist! ROFLMAO ONLY in the Fascist mind could there be a link between the reaction of the Muslim''s to the Cartoon of Mohammad and this rediculous Cartoon depicting the LIES of the Right against Obama. Now listen carefully Swastika Breath and I''ll use small words so your very small mind will understand. Peoples objections to the New Yorker Cartoon was that it inflames the RADICAL RIGHT, you know freaks like you, to CONTINUE their attacks based on LIES against a good American. Good Grief are you freaks stupid or what?? ROFLMAO Now let''s let the Reich know you''re being a good bootlicker today!! SIEG HEIL MEIN FUHRER!! Thatta boy!!
YOU do realize that the New Yorker was pointing at YOU with that Cartoon don''t you? Yep they were telling the WORLD that YOU are a LIAR... yep Sparky YOU are a LIAR and all that you post is LIES!! ROFLMAO Course you aren''t smart enough to understand that BUT what has happened with this blow up about the cartoon is that NOW, EVERY day in the news media, people who MIGHT have believed your lies will NOT do so.. ROFLMAO Now let''s let the Grand Wizard know you are here!! SIEG HEIL GRAND WIZARD!!
I''m worried that the reaction to this cover will stop them from offering the cover of McCain in a wheelchair being pushed by Mrs. McCain''s ''boy''
This was just a badly done cartoon that depended on the public picking up on the fact that it was a bank shot at another target. Given the high probability that the average reader wouldn''t recognize that the New Yorker were trying to do something odd, I can understand why the Obama people were upset.
What is extemely damaging, is that this cover will be shown all over the internet and cable news, over and over and over again. It will be misconstrued, shown as ''proof'' that even the liberal left, sees Obama as a Muslim and a danger.
In the corporate world, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Personal responsibility is something the regular folks are supposed to have as they get screwed. And people sit back and demand nothing from the corporations.
has always been the enemy of free thinkers, democrats,
liberal minded tolerant peoples everywhere,
they are FASCIST, their only concern greed, profit,
they are UnAmerican republicons and theirs is a war against humanity, not a war against terrorism
While the regular New Yorker subscriber or reader might anticipate this as satire, many of the viewers once it was or would be put in distribution via TV coverage and/or the INTERNET, may not "know" this publication''s history of satire. It would have helped things if there had been a caption such as "This is what some Republicans and/or conservatives want you to believe about Obama". The New Yorker should have, could have and hopefully will in the future realize there is an informal distribution network and they have to adjust to it by making sure the intent is stated on the actual page that will be distributed.
One of the journalistic issues is that when the falsehoods are presented or used, too often journalists just let it pass without confronting the person being interviewed regarding the truthfulness of their statements.In conclusion, mocking and sarcasm should be based on fact not fiction, Otherwise, you may be just feeding the ignorance and stupidity that often prevails in society.
Satire of Obama, McCain, or any other candidate is appropriate and necessary in our society. But I go back to the central purpose of the news media: to shine the light of truth where there is ignorance of it in the public. By current polls, 13% of americans still believe Obama is a muslim. THIRTEEN PERCENT!!! The New Yorker knew this, and should have known that their cover would feed more into that ignorance than highlight the GOP''s hateful lies about Obama.
Does anyone suspect McCain or Hillary Clinton of being a muslim? No. But a significant number of folks are ignorant about Obama, and the New Yorker should have chosen another means of fighting the gop''s ignorance, rather than fueling it (not to mention the ignorance among independents and liberals who make up part of that 13%).
So shame on the New Yorker, and a raspberry to Jon Friedman for not seeing the bigger picture.
The conservatives all went to Canada at the time, come to think of it, thats where we should ship out all the conservatives and the Rush Limbaugh''s and Bill O''reilly''s and their followers today. This country would not be in a recession, with the 9 trillion dollar Iraq war of bankruptcy hanging around our necks.
Conservative policies of blood, gore, mayhem, deficit spending, racism, bigotry, Katrina fiasco, Banks going belly up along with Enron, GM, Bear Stearns, Mortgage industry and Airlines, its pretty much the whole ball of wax. Pathetic conservative policies are the real issues in this election.
LIBERAL POLICIES ARE WHAT MAKE THIS COUNTRY WORK. Conservatives don''t or can''t think. They are a disaster for the nation. Americans should wake up and get real.
hence..liberal obama was a victim of ''friendly fire'' from the liberal new Yorker..
Posted by libsluv2spit at 03:11 PM : Jul 16, 2008
In order for it to have come across like The New Yorker intended, they should have had Rush with a paint brush painting the cartoon.
Then people would have gotten the humor in it.
A large number of Americans voted for Bushoccio. A large number were fooled by the neo con men over Iraq and a large number think Obama is a Muslim. I rest my case.
Posted by noloyalisti at 05:52 PM : Jul 16, 2008
I would have liked to have been in the room when they decided this picture would make a good cover. I just wonder how the conversation went.
What is your evidence the New Yorker is not liberal. They endorsed Kerry in the last election and they have long had a reputation of carrying liberal writers.
I would put CBS and the San Francisco Chronicle among dozens of others on the left side of center.
If you mean by liberal there are little large scale radical-socialist media in the US you would be right. That ideology is too far from the mainstream to get a substantial following.
They left out e) confused.
It was once said that the right saw reds under every bed; you and some of the other correspondents seem to see some vast right-wing anti-Obama corporate conspiracy under every bed.
As I said before, Americans don''t get irony. If this was printed in a British magazine, the readers would get the joke.
The problem with the New Yorker cover wasn''t the fact that it was supposed to be satire, but that it was lousy satire.
It was -not- obvious to most that there was supposed to be a humorous comment on ignorance embedded in the art. After all, the New Yorker is not Mad Magazine, who would have done this well, with obvious clues to the satire (like Alfred E. Newman as Barack Obama) and outrageously funny allusions in the content.
Instead, the New Yorker produced just a lousy cover not reinforced by any supporting article (can''t judge a magazine by its cover, I guess) or any editorial explanation or expansion on the image.
The New Yorker got what it wanted: a controversial cover, much attention fron the rest of the media, more sales, more "relevance" (whatever). Unfortunately, there are many Americans who will see this idiot cover as more proof that Obama is a Muslim and his wife an extremist activist.
Humor only works if it''s funny. The New Yorker miscalculated and the artist just did a lousy job. The magazine is getting the beating it deserves for its poor judgment and poor execution.
All of the *** depicted on the cover was brought on by HRC and her accomplices on the left, to add Rush Limbaugh painting that picture is just idiotic, you should just put Hill and Bill on the cover with them.
"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don%u2019t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
-
by ausus-2009
July 17, 2008 7:47 PM PDT
- mtracy9,
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 42 CommentsSo it''s the CIA you find hiding under your bed. I am sure the CIA has better things to do than penetrate every media outlet in the US. It would certainly spread their resources very thin. Your argument is McCarthyism of the left.
As well, the internet ensures there are so many media channels that no one organization or group conld control them all.
Interestingly, the media control tactic was successfully employed in the UK to get the Labor Government elected. They had key operators strategically placed in major newspapers, and of course the BBC has always been a Labor Party mouthpiece.